I'm bothered by how much the concept of "free speech" has been
bastardized by right wing politics. On the one hand free speech, for a
citizen of Planet Earth, should mean I should be able to speak freely on
*almost* any subject. On the other hand "free speech" specifically
refers to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which is part of
the ten Amendments, ratified in 1791, known as the Bill of Rights. The
First Amendment *specifically* refers to government entities not have
the ability to quash citizens ability to speak freely on *almost* any
subject. Hate speech and inciting violence are not included. This last
bit has been distorted and abused by the right wing in the U.S. if it
means "anybody can talk shit about any subject at any time." which of
course it doesn't. For some reason, though, everybody else--the left
wing and independents--don't call them out for this transgression. Of
course, both "hate speech" and inciting violence are open to
interpretation, but that's' not an excuse.

On 3/9/23 6:04 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 March 2023 at 18:15:36 UTC-5, trotsky wrote:
>> I'm bothered by how much the concept of "free speech" has been
>> bastardized by right wing politics. On the one hand free speech, for a
>> citizen of Planet Earth, should mean I should be able to speak freely on
>> *almost* any subject. On the other hand "free speech" specifically
>> refers to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which is part of
>> the ten Amendments, ratified in 1791, known as the Bill of Rights. The
>> First Amendment *specifically* refers to government entities not have
>> the ability to quash citizens ability to speak freely on *almost* any
>> subject. Hate speech and inciting violence are not included.
>
> 1. Where in the Constitution does it refer to hate speech?
> 2. When you broad-brush ANYTHING you happen to dislike as "hate speech" free-speech ENDS.
>

From Google:

What does the Supreme Court say about hate speech?
(The Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps provides an example of
this legal reasoning.) Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate
speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent
criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted
against a person or group.

You lack the basic intelligence to discuss a topic with any clarity
whatsoever.

On Mar 9, 2023 at 3:15:30 PM PST, "trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

> I'm bothered by how much the concept of "free speech" has been
> bastardized by right wing politics. On the one hand free speech, for a
> citizen of Planet Earth, should mean I should be able to speak freely on
> *almost* any subject. On the other hand "free speech" specifically
> refers to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which is part of
> the ten Amendments, ratified in 1791, known as the Bill of Rights. The
> First Amendment *specifically* refers to government entities not have
> the ability to quash citizens ability to speak freely on *almost* any
> subject. Hate speech

Hate speech is protected speech under the 1st Amendment, Hutt, you cancerous
anal polyp. There is no 'hate speech' exception to the 1st Amendment, no
matter how many times a 'progressive' pol tells you there is.

You should have learned this in grade school:

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)

> and inciting violence are not included.

Only subject to the restrictions in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
Anything that fails the Brandenburg test is protected speech, which is why
Trump can't be prosecuted for his speech on January 6th, despite the claims of
all the Democrat politicians and the blathering heads in the media who say
otherwise.

> trotsky
>
> From Google:
> What does the Supreme Court say about hate speech?
> (The Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps provides an example of
> this legal reasoning.) Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate
> speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent
> criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted
> against a person or group.

That's not "hate speech", that's inciting imminent criminal activity or
a specific threat of violence.

https://i.postimg.cc/v8k5HzXK/read-a-book.png

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>trotsky

>>From Google:
>>What does the Supreme Court say about hate speech?
>>(The Supreme Court's decision in Snyder v. Phelps provides an example of
>>this legal reasoning.) Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate
>>speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent
>>criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted
>>against a person or group.

>That's not "hate speech", that's inciting imminent criminal activity or
>a specific threat of violence.

Brandenburg v Ohio

>https://i.postimg.cc/v8k5HzXK/read-a-book.png

Doggies aren't racist.